The end of privacy: Brin & gear it

Just because you sign off, switch off or log off doesn’t mean your privacy is protected.

Some 16 years ago, when the World Trade Centre in New York City was still standing tall and proud, and the world was a more innocent place, your correspondent reported on a seminal chess match between then world champion Garry Kasparov and an IBM computer named Deep Blue. After holding its own for the first few games, Deep Blue unleashed the full might of its computing power on Kasparov, reducing him to a gibbering wreck by game six and attaining (I wrote) “and a place in chess and computing history … Perhaps , a place in the history of mankind and civilisation too.”

Never one to take things lying down, Kasparov fulminated against the computer and its makers and programmers (from IBM), challenging them to enter it into tournaments where he would kick its metaphorical backside. His reasoning was that Deep Blue got a preparatory deep look at him in one-on-one match play whereas in a tournament with many players it would be robbed of that edge. But it wasn’t difficult to see even then that computers would easily overcome the problem. Computing power, speed, memory etc were growing at such a fast clip that, forget Kasparov, a confederacy of grandmasters wouldn’t be able to beat future machines.

We know now that power of Deep Blue, circa 1997, can now fit into a regular laptop. There is no more talk of man versus machine. The chess world has co-opted computers and grandmasters use them as tools in preparing for match play. “One machine can do the work of 50 ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man,” a philosopher once said. Mercifully, he did not live to see the possibility of machines philosophising.

In fact, the possibility of machines becoming sentient was expressed by Arthur Clarke in his 1968 fictional masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey (brought to screen by Stanley Kubrick). “I’m sorry Dave; I’m afraid I cannot do that,” is the chillingly defiant response of HAL, the computer made by the fictional Indian scientist Chandra, when it is asked to open the pod bay doors to avert a disaster.

Today, it is a no-brainer that computers will run the world, although humans will continue to rule it. Each passing year expands the range of tasks computers can accomplish, and fine-tunes their skills. Computing power sits not just in your desktop or notebook or mobile device but increasingly in your fridge, in your car, and on your front door. Also now ‘on’ your head. Before long it will be IN your head. The only question now is how we handle the inevitable privacy issues associated with the relentless ubiquity of computers.

The last named device — the one ON your head — is something yours truly ran into at a recent gab fest when its maker, Google honcho Sergei Brin, decided to demo it for me despite initial reluctance to do any press for what’s come to be known as Google Glass. Hanging the set he was using on my face, Brin ran through the commands before asking me to read things in my range of vision . “Record video,” I intoned, reading out the clear print in the upper corner of my visual range. The miniature camera mounted on the frame of Google Glass began to record video (of Brin, because he was in front of me).

By now a small crowd had gathered around us and Brin made a quick getaway as we began to pepper him with questions. The technology bits are easy enough to figure out and he was happy enough to answer some of them. However, it is the privacy and intrusion issues that are starting to worry many people. Already, there is talk of offices, restaurants, and other public places banning Google Glasses. Who in their right mind would want to be recorded in an unguarded moment for who knows what purpose?

But it is already happening. Many offices and stores across the world have closed circuit cameras. Increasingly, city governments are starting to install CCTV cameras in public spaces. Google Glass carries this one step further into private domain — a bit more snazzily at that. In this case, it has nothing to do with security but with the increasing hunger for data — data over which you have little or no control — by big companies because data means money.

The good news is that Google Glass is still a discernible device and you can always ask for it to be removed or object to being recorded. The camera is also detachable from the spectacles. But if the track record of computing is any indication, future devices may not be so discernible — and we are not even talking about cameras mounted onto pens and spectacles. You may not be able to escape — not even by the skin of your teeth.

Years ago, Scott McNealy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems (with Vinod Khosla) was asked about the privacy implications of the company’s Jini platform. “You have zero privacy. Get over it,” he is said to have replied in a rare moment of candour for Silicon Valley, where big companies are now jostling for data and information on clients and customers because that is what leads to the lolly. I’m afraid that’s true. Just because you log off, sign off, switch off doesn’t mean you are protected. You are kidding yourself if you think you can guard yourself with privacy controls and protective software. Once you are connected to the digital world, every interaction leaves a trail from which companies can gather more and more information.

Google Glass may well be a visible manifestation of this. The harsh truth is it is the end of privacy. Unless you never signed up for all this in the first place, in which case, you might as well head for the hills.